~ Verus Conditio

Commenters’ Thoughts on Fitness Tests and Respect for Women

In the post Men, some really great comments were made that I wish to highlight regarding Fitness testing and how one man views women (I would really like to hear other men’s thoughts on this). These were fantastic comments that should not get buried. (it ended up having a really interesting comment thread that you may wish to read in it’s entirety).

We’re all sinners, and we all – consciously or not – know we’re bound to get ourselves into serious trouble if we’re left to our own devices. I submit fitness testing is a “safe” way to be (re)assured that there’s someone out there who’ll pull back on our reigns and “Whoa Nellie!” when we need it. This in turn means you don’t have to worry about running amuck in other matters and landing yourself in real trouble.

So, would you agree that the knowledge that there’s someone looking out for you who’ll keep you safe and out of trouble one of the best ways a man can “free” his woman to be all she was meant to be?

A woman fitness tests to ascertain the strength of the man’s boundaries. How well does he defend the perimeter?

If not well, then she cannot rely on him for safety and must therefore guard herself – so she retains or even amps up her masculinity.

If he defends it well, then she does not need to worry about her own defence and can focus on feminine development.

The reason then that a successfully passed fitness test can make a woman so elated is that it is a literal, in-the-moment confirmation of her freedom to become her highest self. We *can* defend our own perimeter, and pretty well at that, but it leaves us unable to fully realise our nature.

I think in a certain sense, when men in the past have described women as ‘lesser’ it amounts to this, that a man’s masculine nature is freestanding, whereas a woman’s feminine nature can only reach its full development under a man.

You mention “defending the perimeter”, and while I think I have an idea what you’re referring to, I’d still ask the next question – namely the definition of “perimeter” and “what is it he’s defending from”?

. . . If a woman’s feminine nature can only develop under the protection of a man, the next question is – why? What is it about “femininity” that it requires a protective, freestanding “covering” from a man before it’s flower can open up and blossom?

Q: Is it because it’s like a delicate flower that can be easily damaged? For example, being nurturing and caring requires lowering one’s defenses, which in turn leaves the person open to attack and injury.

Q: Is it that there are certain aspects to it that are potentially “dangerous” or “damaging” and need to be “shushed” back where they came from when they appear? Take for instance women saying they want a “nice” guy, and “just be yourself”, and then they proceed to nuclear reject or LJBF them.

I think the perimeter is between the home (or, historically, the community) and the outside world. The things that need to be protected are any persons, possessions, or ‘cultural’ constructs that are a part of this home/community.

I think you can look at it two ways though,

a- there is no inherent danger or badness to women or femininity, and the negative and damaging behaviours we observe in women stem from the masculinised state. Therefore, surrounding women with a strong masculine support wall will enable them to set aside incongruent masculine features and develop feminine ones.

b- negative behaviours in women are in fact manifestations of an unbridled feminine state (‘the feminine imperative’ or some such thing) and male-imposed strictures simply put the brakes on this.

I know the latter view is the common one in the manosphere, and I am willing to entertain it as true (and have prior to this), but the former feels closer to reality to me. It also accords with the fact that seemingly all of us women here felt somewhat masculine pre-man, and only really flourished in our femininity in the presence of a man.

I`ve thought that when men before described women as lesser it was mainly about seeing her as lesser for certain tasks. Lesser in her ability to fulfill the masculine task. Usually, or at least often, I think the talk of women’s lesser nature was combined with talk of her higher nature and worthiness.

Lately I`ve come to the conclusion that I don`t really respect women in the sense that I thought I did before. I used to think that I respected the intelligence and competence of women in the same way as men because women did seem to do as good a job of most stuff as we did. To some extent I still see it that way. But there is a certain deep respect that is in fact lacking. Even amongst that are in fact strong and “independent” there lacks the deeper form of independence that a man CAN have and that many men have to potential for. Even those women who do stand very strongly in the face of social pressure tend to really want to win everyone over eventually. They don`t have the actually independent mindset of TRULY not caring what other people think and just wanting to create their own world. They don`t really enjoy pissing everyone of the way some men do. These women are really strong but they are strong enough to tolerate their own initial discomfort at the pressure which is not the same as being virtually immune to it. So will I can respect them a lot in many ways for competence and strength I don`t give them the ultimate respect I could give to some men.

A lot of it also boils down to wether you want to adapt to the fast at hand or adapt the job to your comfort. I`m seeing this everywhere now. Women see the job as about them not about the task of the job. They want to make the job fit their needs for comfort and enjoyment. This I have zero respect for. What gives respect among men is being able to tolerate the hardship of a task, not creating a comfortable existence for yourself where you don`t need to endure hardship. So in this sense I just can`t respect women in the same way I can respect men.

But this is just about respect in a masculine hierarchy concerned with masculine virtues. Women can do well in this but not in the fundamental sense. The lack of respect is not about not respecting women per se it is just about not respecting their masculinity.The lack of respect for women’s masculinity go together with an adoration for their femininity and a respect for the powers of their femininity which in an ultimate long term sense is more powerful than masculinity. So the positive feelings towards women will still be there and can be very strong there just won`t a fundamental masculine respect for women.

My guess would be that many writers from the past went over board with this. The fear men have of women running wild and of having women exert their tremendous power over them has probably lead to fear based exaggerations and animosity creeping in to their writings.

I don’t really have anything to add. These comments really stuck out and I didn’t want others to miss the chance to read and discuss these ideas.

**Update: Phedre was on fire during that thread and I forgot to add this one. There are a lot of theories out there regarding masculinized women. Roissy had a recent post up about this as well. Here is Phedre’s theory (Personally, I think this could have a lot to do with it, but is probably an amalgamation of several factors, including diet and environmental):

I was reading some studies the other day that showed that when men engage in masculine behaviours – competing, winning, etc – their testosterone levels go up. One study mentioned that the same effect was observed in women, only on a much smaller scale, since a woman’s T levels are a fraction those of a man. Since the study was only interested in male levels this was only mentioned in passing, but I think it’s very relevant to what we’re talking about here, as well as a number of common manosphere observations.

If a woman is living alone she is forced to deal with more conflict in her day-to-day life than if she has a man to help take care of things. If a woman is working, especially trying to climb the corporate ladder, she is dealing with a lot of conflict and competition. If a woman is constantly trying to control her man and argue with him, she is generating competition and conflict.

Maybe as a society we’ve simply created a self-perpetuating cycle by allowing or forcing women to live and behave in ways that raise their T levels and thereby bring out masculine behavioural traits – which in turn leads to more conflict and a sustained raised T level.

On the flip side of that, does behaving in a feminine way raise estrogen or some other female-primary hormone? And is this also a self-perpetuating loop? And, could this mean that the general unfemininity of today’s women is a contributor to women’s growing fertility problems?

“What gives respect among men is being able to tolerate the hardship of a task creating a comfortable existence for yourself where you don`t need to endure hardship”

It should of course be a NOT before creating a comfortable…

I could elaborate with that I think a lot of the put downs, ridicule and the “contempt” etc. men have historically displayed towards women have to do with men trying to maintain the boundaries with regards to this. They have used it to, well actually, “keep women in their place”. Which also means keeping men in THEIR place. The problem with classical patriarchy is that it was usually overdone and too generalized. The core views where accurate but as feminism have shown women can perfectly well do all sorts of thinks people used to think they could`t but the catch is that as a historical process, over time, all the stuff that was warned about creeps in. The cognitive “errors” that men saw in women that made them distrust their abilities do show up and become part of the culture of an organization and of a field over time.

This leaves us in a really, really tricky situation. I think the solution is that over time as the whole masculine resurgence starts to filter into everything in society men will put up the boundaries and lay down the basics for how certain fields are supposed to function and certain rules for thinking. It will probably take as much time as feminism took to get to where we are now but I think it will happen. I believe I have sent he same in the sphere. After the women in the sphere got some basics down from the men they started to do really good thinking about red pill stuff. But it is dependent on men holding onto and asserting certain core truths that it will always be men that primarily see. Its not that women can`t see them or that all men will see them its that the REALITY check of attraction, gender dynamics and various other harsh truths of life will always be predominantly seen by men first.

In a similar fashion there is a form REALISM in male thinking that is vital in how to deal with anything that falls within the more traditional male spheres. I´ve been arguing against a draft of women in addition to the draft of men in the country where I live and the utter lack of realism in the way the women that are supporting this is astounding. They say stuff like with modern armies physical strength is obsolete and that female nurturing tendencies will be good for the troops in battle etc. The key problem is that don`t even stop to think, for a second, about wether that is actually true. The only thing that matters with an army is wether it WORKS, wether it WINS and protects us. That is why military training is so brutal. Yet female journalists write articles about how the army should integrate new age feel good motivation techniques for the soldiers and eliminate all the harshness and just inspire the soldiers instead of pushing them. It is so mindless my head almost explodes because I don`t even now where to begin to build an argument with them. Anyway, the point is that once men go to sleep and let women ponder away without any checks and “controls” for a few decades, the ability of women to think REALISTICALLY shuts down and their desire for comfort and fantasy just takes over.

A lot of the respect/lack of respect for men and women’s thinking stems from our doubts about weather we can trust that particular woman to think with realism over time. She might be smarter than a guy but will she have the ability to stay with the discomfort of reality and does she have the ability to be hard enough in her recommendations for action. That is where a lot of the problem lies.

As I said I do think that over time these things will get corrected. I see the whole red pill things as infinitively broad encompassing every field of human interaction and thinking. I see the shift of the last forty years in all social science, in political thought, in the broader political culture of political correctness, in changes in workplace environments and everything and everywhere really. I see the resurgence coming with researcher slamming older forms of parenting advice as breeding narcissism because of a lack of boundaries and excessive praise (Ricky Rawy would agree), I see it in philosophers writing essays critical of “victim culture”, I see it in the way Steven Pinker and certain other thinkers are bringing logic cogent arguments based on actual data to slay muddled postmodernist thinking that can never arrive at a conclusion (yet somehow always supports left wing policies).

Once this correction is accomplished I think we will arrive at a sort of mental patriarchy. Because male views on the core things will become predominant women will mostly adapt that and work within that. Because men will loose their fear of making women uncomfortable etc. and will be very mindful of these things they will not be scared to correct women in these things.

Once we are there my hope is that we will be better of than we where before. Someone said that men tend to make the big discoveries and the biggest new technologies but women tend to make smaller companies that spin of of those and create more easily usable day to day stuff. Yohami once said something about women distilling or processing what comes from men into something more life nourishing or something. My sense is that at least he was touching upon something similar. I`ve also read something about men being better at creating knowledge but women being better at integrating it. My hope is that once the mental patriarchy is in place it will be beneficial to have female style thinkers add the unique cognitive benefits and perspectives of the female brain. Even within the traditional male fields. I think as long as the core male views dominate the field and one understands the male female core difference in these things there can be a potential benefit there. I think we see this in the sphere. The men are better at seeing the core generalities but then women come and talk about all sorts of individual exceptions. A lot of that is NAWALT stuff and other types of thinking of the same sort that is just hamstring but a lot of it is actually very true. Men tend to too easily become content with the core principles and strategies in place and too easily ignorer the importance and benefit of exceptions. The mutual discussion clearly lead to refinement in thinking. It makes perfect sense to me that this would lead to similar benefits in thinking about most areas of life. There just has to be a core male dominance and leading in the thinking to make it all work.

“This could correspond with disrespecting an effeminate man – because he’s acting like a woman, but he’s not a woman and as such will never wield a woman’s innate power.”

Precisely! And he has no womb so he does not bring the benefit of a woman. I think though that in a very large and specialized society like ours very feminine men can add their own benefits as long as they are held in check by other mens upholding of key male norms. Currently too many very feminine men are betraying the brotherhood and allying themselves with feminists in a feeble attempt to get their way without the discomfort of true competition, change the rules in their favor etc. A broad cultural red pill correction should change that. They might not be all that useful in societies that need very strong traditional masculinity and not much else in men but large systems specialize and thrive on specialization. Our society is huge and differentiated and so can probably use a lot of people that fall outside of the core masculine feminine framework. Think about the artist Prince and all sorts of effeminate people like that. They bring their own gifts to the world they just have to stop working against the brotherhood. Most of the readers at thegoodmenproject.com fall into this category IMO.

“They don`t really enjoy pissing everyone of the way some men do.
I’d disagree with this a bit – any man that enjoys pissing off other people has something wrong with him that needs to be fixed.”

I see what you are saying. However, I think there is something rebellious and provocateur enjoying in many men that correlates with their ability to provide the useful independence they provide. I`m far from immune from social pressure but there is a part of me that enjoys getting hated for telling what I believe is the truth.

I put this post up very quickly today in between other things going on as I wanted to get it up before the comments disappeared. I will try to go back later tonight to find the questions they responded to. I thought about posting a lot more of the thread as the whole thing was so good, but it would have gotten out of hand for a post. Making dinner now so I will try to get to it later!

I`d like to add that one of the best brains I have come across is Girlwriteswhat. Her analytical abilities, her way of building an argument and her insight into how things actually are is really, really unique. Admiration for female brilliance in such things is very much not something that goes out the window. Vox admires Camile Paglia as one of the greatest living thinkers. It is more of a group thing as I tried to explain.

@Stingray – no sweat and no rush. I appreciate the work you put into running this blog and taking care of us commenters. :)

Speaking of food – I had lunch with the parents today, and as you suspected, it was much better than normal. It also opened my eyes to the need to support my Dad in his establishing and acknowledging his role as “head of house.” Some examples:

Example 1:
Mom: “Ok, who’se going to help me set the table?”
Me: Fitness test, guilt trip – ignore and not respond to it.
Dad: “Why don’t you help set the table.”
Me: “Ok.”

This way I didn’t fall for or submit to the guilt trip, and by immediately submitting to my father’s request, I acknowledged his dominance and authority _in front of his wife_.

Example 2:
Mom: “Did you know our van was having electrical problems?”
Me: This topic had been discussed the previous week, so the question feels like she doesn’t trust me to remember anything. Her “Did you know…” type of question has also been one of her more annoying (and dangerous to me) habits.

Instead of responding to the question with contempt and a “yeah Mom, we talked about it last week”, I ignored her statement and “responded” to my Dad about some thoughts I had about ways to determine the van’s problems.

In the past pushback like that would’ve been met with anger followed by tears and then her storming off to have a “headache” for the next 3 days. Instead she took it, and the conversation continued as if nothing big had happened.

What I found most remarkable was how much my Dad opened up. Normally Sunday dinners are quiet and there isn’t much conversation. By establishing a dominant masculine frame for myself, submitting to my Dad’s request immediately w/out question or argument, and and addressing him as an authority figure – I seem to’ve fundamentally changed the dynamic of our collective relationships. At least for one meal. :)

(I’m not sure how appropriate relating this ongoing story is to this post – if you feel it appropriate to move it somewhere, please feel free to do so.)

I have thoughts on your conversation with your mom, but I will have to post them later. Regarding the relevancy to this post, I’m not worried about it in the least. This is such a small blog and one of the good things about the size is that I can let the comment thread go where it may. I prefer it that way.

I’d go a little further. A non-independent woman, trying to fake being a man and building her identity around that is not just hard to respect, it reeks of insecurity. It’s one thing to adopt masculine traits for survival and jobs, but some put masculinity into their identity as well. .

fitness test= ignore it. change subject. i posted about “dealing with a woman’s negative energy”. don’t recall how many comments it generated though. a few readers asked me to explain what i menat by that when i mentioned it.

i think it’s importnat for men to realize it, and appropriately deal with it when his woman is spun.

I never thought before about how a son could help to assert his father’s dominance. That’s fantastic. Is your mom responding differently to him as well, at least while you are around?

Those “Did you know?” questions can be quite dangerous, I agree. While it may be he lack of trust in you remembering, they always come across as drama inciting when I hear them. Sure, they can sometimes be innocent, but they often are not. Tone conveys a whole lot there.

A non-independent woman, trying to fake being a man and building her identity around that is not just hard to respect, it reeks of insecurity. It’s one thing to adopt masculine traits for survival and jobs, but some put masculinity into their identity as well. .

I have a couple of questions regarding this. When it is not put into one’s identity, or if it is removed, how is that viewed? Example, when I work out, I work out hard. I think some would say I work out like a man (not talking weight lifted, but the manner in which I do it). This is a relief for me as there are certain times I like being masculine. It like it lets out pressure from a valve that needs to be released every once in a while. Do other women find this as well?

There are definitely times when I need to act masculine. I feel like it re-grounds me. Mostly I also do it by working out like a man. That seems to be the most effective, fast way, and as a bonus means I’ve had an excellent workout.

Actually, all the ways I can think of doing things like a man that are effective at re-grounding are physical: chopping firewood, hauling heavy stuff, enduring very long stretches of physical effort, etc.

But if they are all physical, probably the re-gounding is affected not through the ‘masculinity’ of the activity, but just because physical effort promotes clear-headedness.

Can you think of things that don’t have to do with physical activity where it feels good/relieving to act like a man?

Yes, for better or worse, one could say I very much have a masculine sense of humor. Also, when around people who know me well, I can be quite blunt. I have to hold back both of those things as it doesn’t tend to go very well with people who have not known me for a very long time. Actually, I can only think of two people with whom I can get away with this with and one is my husband.

Though, in thinking more about that, it might not be a masculine sense of humor more than it is a desire to say exactly what’s on my mind, no matter how crude. Maybe that’s just human. I’m not sure.

I love doing this stuff. Especially chopping fire wood. I don’t know why. With the wood, there is just something about wielding an ax and being pretty good at it (for a girl ;) ). Maybe it has to do with getting attention for a usually male project. But even when there is no one around I still enjoy it.

I was thinking about the value of masculine behaviors for women when I was running the other day. I have just gotten back into running but when I use to do it I got a “high” from a good jog. None of my feminine obligations provide the same benefits.

There is a danger, I suppose, in being to binary. A man does not lose his masculinity if he changes a diaper or sooths a crying child or cooks a meal or runs a vacuum. The difference is in the emphasis.

I think it is probably hard work or hard thinking that is craved and it is craved because iron sharpens iron. We crave hard men..such as the alpha..we crave a hard effort…we crave a hard teaching that our brains can chew on.

I remember when I was learning about natural childbirth, one of my motivations was to experience something difficult and come out the other side.

I am at odds about how much of the gentile classes of the old aristocracy should be mimicked in a new traditionalist society. Seems too much gentility makes people soft and softness leads to decadence which leads to liberalism.

That makes a whole lot of sense. I was motivated by much the same with my kids. I had guilt over it, too. I kept thinking, I know that this is what’s best for my kids, but is it really ok that part of the reason I want to do this is because I want to see if I can?

Iron sharpens iron. I do seek this out in certain things in my life. And it very much depends on the fast as some things I avoid like crazy.

“I am at odds about how much of the gentile classes of the old aristocracy should be mimicked in a new traditionalist society. Seems too much gentility makes people soft and softness leads to decadence which leads to liberalism.”

Aristocracy is predominantly a feminine thing. Althugh there is lots of formal rank and stuff they compete for poppularity in a feminine way. The male hierarchy way is more about just being in ones own mind and pushing ones own will through, if need be by force, but mostly through the competence you have and the power of your personality. A man in the masculine hierarchy looks to himself for guidance and is not other directed. Aristocratic society is a poppularity conmpetition where how you are viewed by everone else is the core currency. You can`t really TAKE the power you have to continually be voted the coolest. Aristocrats are intesly other foucsed and their whole energy betrays that they are constantly looking at themselves through the eyes of others. It is more about what you radiate and how “shiny” you are, if you are like a star, something that just IS and is fantastic then about any sort of doing or skill or achievement. All of that makes it feminine. It really is the ideal social scene for gay men and women with the use of indirect wit and subtleties, jealousy ploous, rumour etc.

We’ve talked a lot about masculinity/masculine behaviour, and it seems that because it is freestanding it is easier to define. But what do we see as femininity/feminine behaviour?

For example, I have an alpha in my life that allows me the freedom to attain a peak feminine state. I feel very feminine. But what part of my experience is feminine? I like hard physical effort and hard mental effort; I couldn’t care less what other women think of me; when I spend time in an all-male environment I feel more natural and at ease than in a mixed or especially an all female one, and yet I know I am not disturbing the male dynamic.

Those are all masculine traits, yet they do not present in the harsh or even neurotic way of today’s ‘hard’ Western woman. And they present differently than when I was alone.

Is it that having that man in my life somehow frees both my femininity *and* masculinity to be expressed in their purest way?

When I try to define femininity for myself the overarching thing that comes to mind is ‘compassion’. I feel now like this is the purest expression of the feminine. This really coalesced for me when I implemented red-pill stuff solidly. Our relationship had a strongly red-pill type dynamic before, so I felt quite feminine and fairly balanced, but since addressing all of those things consciously and strengthening the right behaviours and understandings my feminine/masculine aspects have become both more polarised and more balanced. And in the crystallisation of the feminine the state of mind that has really come to the fore is ‘compassion’.

But then that may just be my particular experience, based on any number of other factors. Thoughts?

It is a hard question. I have quite a few masculine qualities as well and I have often questioned what to do with it. I guess I came to the conclusion that I should express my masculine qualities in a feminine way. lol.

Do my jogging in a skort. Debate people with masculine intensity but top it off with feminine flair.

I don’t think femininity is the absence of masculinity. I am thinking that femininity is more the act of reception and refinement.

A lot of women like to be violent every now and then and it is good to have an outlet for that, but trying to compete with men ruins male-dominated activities. We have things like roller derby and female-only sports so we can kick some arse without putting men in an awkward situation.

It’s not just your particular experience as nearly everything you said rings very true for me as well. The only difference is, when I define femininity for myself what always comes across is more of a letting go. A lightening or release. That’s why I like the word submit so much as that is very much what it is. Where i used to try to hang on for dear life, I can now let go and be.

So, the question remains, what is the feminine aspect? I don’t know. I really do need those things that many would consider masculine. I also know that a lot of women think that I am a bit nutty because of how I am with things like being more comfortable in the company of men, enjoying physical labor and the rest. Yet, in many ways, I am far more feminine than these same women for the way I conduct myself around my husband and our family. One can still enjoy what we do and fully submit, so maybe it is in the submitting that we would find the answer?

Without the masculine essence femininity simply can’t exist, but with it femininity makes the masculine essence shine. Femininity is receiving and welcoming and then giving. That is kind of abstract and confusing but hopefully it makes some sense.

Femininity shouldn’t seek its own glory..it exists to glorify the other. When femininity seeks to glorify itself it stops being femininity at all.

This results in a desire to do some masculine activities as a kind of subliminated sexuality.

Think about a good run and that “second wind” that results in the runner euphoria..is it not a sort of submission? Isn’t it a kind of reception to the forces of physics?

What both of you said rings true. Compassion has been on my mind for religious reasons, but in fact it is submission that is foremost. Thence stem the receptivity and the compassion, both of which can only happen (in their true, noble form) when there is full submission to a person or situation. If you are trying to change things you cannot be authentically receptive and compassionate. They are only possible if you let go of your own will to power.

“When it is not put into one’s identity, or if it is removed, how is that viewed?”

Background to my conclusion: I think of feminine traits and masculine traits as those found more often in men and women, respectively. As such, they can be positive and negative. That is why it makes no sense to me to be proud of masculinity or femininity on its own.

However, people in the ‘sphere usually take pride in one or the other because they worked on some POSITITE traits, cultivated them and got good results. For men, it could be leadership skills. For women it could be nurturing abilities. But the important thing to note is that these people are not proud of masculinity or femininity per se, but the positive qualities they got out of it.

And there’s another type of people (just women actually…I haven’t met men who hated being men and wanted to be women, without being trassexual). These women are proud of masculinity per se, even if it’s negative. These hate being a woman deep down, even just a little bit. That is what I mean by putting masculinity into your identity. Why else would they accept and imitate even the lousy masculine traits?

I need to disagree that it makes no sense to be proud of masculinity or femininity on their own. I think part of the reason feminism was so successful is that they shamed people for being masculine or feminine. They took away the pride that was felt for being these things. I’m not sure it has to do with just the good results because I think it goes a lot deeper than that. A man who is proud of his masculinity is a lot less likely to allow himself to be shamed away from it. The same for women and femininity.

Well, it doesn’t make sense to me to be proud of something you’re just born as (orientation, sex, nationality) or something negative. Say, for a man, being a go-getter is good, so if he learned to be one, he can have a healthy sense of pride about it. But he can’t be proud of having large hands, being tall, or having a lot of testosterone coursing through his blood. All those things are not accomplishments, and don’t reflect character.

Pride, to me, is about something positive that one put effort into, and is pleased with the result. Being “proud” of one’s masculinity or femininity sounds more like self-acceptance and self-love (in a good way..). I just wouldn’t call it pride. For example, I’m not proud of my nature, but I like my nature and it allows me to live in a satisfied way and make some people happy. I won’t let anyone shame me for it, but not because I’m proud of it. I am who I am, and trying to become bent out of shape to please shamers is a road to misery.

As for why I don’t see this as pride… I tried being proud of things like this before. When I was a kid, my parents made me feel proud of my innate intelligence (not bragging, no genius level IQ here), which backfired in univesity, where you can’t rely on pure intelligence to get good grades. Suddenly having a hard time robbed me of my smart identity for a while. Then I understood it should have never been the thing my identity depends on, and now it isn’t. I’m proud of my efforts since then, but my intelligence I simply like having.
I view femininity and masculinity the same way. It’s a great feeling when you accept yourself and enjoy the gender differences. Not such a great feeling when you encounter an obstacle that temporarily obliterates the signs of femininity, intelligence or masculinity, and you don’t know what to think of yourself anymore.

My reasoning is focused on self-improvement. I don’t know what would happen if most people thought this way, if it would be a good thing or if they even can. But this is what makes the most sense to me and makes me less vulnerable to ideological confusion attempts and setbacks.

But he can’t be proud of having large hands, being tall, or having a lot of testosterone coursing through his blood.

Emma,

I think we are on the same page only somewhat talking past each other. I view masculinity and femininity as far more than the bodies we were given. A lot of men are born with what you describe here, only I would never describe them as being masculine. They are too “blue pill”. These men are simply male, but not masculine in my book. I see masculinity as a character trait.

Having said that I see what you are saying about the difference between pride and self acceptance. So called blue pill men have not accepted anything about their nature.

Sorry, Emma. I’m dragging tonight. I hope this makes some sense. Basically, I see the difference you are talking about and I think I agree with you. I may wake up in the morning and have it be more clear in my mind.

“Having said that I see what you are saying about the difference between pride and self acceptance. So called blue pill men have not accepted anything about their nature. ”

Exactly – and you just provided me with the male example. I didn’t think of it before, because I don’t hear of any men who actually want to be women and envy what women have. They tend to, instead, feel ashamed of themselves, or deny they are “like most guys” and act sensitive and more like women whom they want to gain approval of. So we get shameful, niceguy men and envious angry women.

As a Christian I am somewhat surprised that I’ve not seen anyone make a connection between women fitness testing their husbands, and the concept of putting God to the test… which He clearly doesn’t appreciate. Of course we men are not God, but I suspect that our reasons for disliking the tests may be similar to His in some ways. Putting someone to the test says something about lack of trust at the very least. It puts the man and woman at odds and adds an unnecessary burden to the job of leading and protecting.

With respect to Phedre’s point, fitness testing isn’t really a case of ensuring secure perimeters around the relationship, but testing the /man’s/ boundaries. The residue of that kind of behavior, especially if it is frequently repeated, is to create/enhance a division between the man and woman. From a christian standpoint, this ignores the goal of marriage to be united– especially when you consider that the man needs his wife’s respect. Scripture specifically says that women are to respect their husbands, a difficult attitude to maintain simultaneously without trust.

To address a Northern Observer’s observant assumption, the purpose of the test isn’t /always/ to find asurance of real protection and leadership. Sometimes it is to find out how much of her crap she can slough onto the man. She will be happier ultimately if she can’t get away with it, but it may take a while for her to reach that conclusion, particularly if she has fear fueling a drive to control. In which case (and possibly others) that woman is not likely to be “happy” if her man “passes” the test.

Fitness testing is a ubiquitous behavior and is a manifestation of God’s statement that the woman’s desire will be to her husband, but that he will rule over her. I doubt we’ll see the end of it any day soon, but it is foolish to allow the contempt of being put to the test. It is ground lost that takes twice as much effort to regain. Men make mistakes and they sin. It takes very little for a woman to assemble a plausible, stubborn, negative emotional picture that she will refer to repeatedly, maybe subconsciously. If a man fails his wife, a respectful, loving wife will find (or make) room for forgiveness and reconciliation (not talking about major moral failure or abuse). The wife whose habit is primarily to test, will find instead more reason to fear, test, and control.

The fact is that we can talk about pills and greek letters and praise the alpha traits all day long, but the real challenge begins after marriage and you find out what you are both /really/ like. That man can become sick, injured, make mistakes, sin, get embarrassed because it happens to every human on earth. Testing isn’t “safe”. The man in this situation needs a wife who makes him remember who he is… not look for reasons/opportunity to test and take over all or part of his role.

Hopefully circumstances will never take us to those places, and whatever tests a husband faces will be mostly innoccuous. My circumstances have already taken me to some pretty tough places, but by God’s grace this family is still together and I have learned a lot that I can teach my kids.

It seems that what many people are saying — and I’m referring to Lover of Israel’s observations regarding testing, in which he says the following, “Fitness testing is a ubiquitous behavior and is a manifestation of God’s statement that the woman’s desire will be to her husband, but that he will rule over her. I doubt we’ll see the end of it any day soon, but it is foolish to allow the contempt of being put to the test. It is ground lost that takes twice as much effort to regain. Men make mistakes and they sin. It takes very little for a woman to assemble a plausible, stubborn, negative emotional picture that she will refer to repeatedly, maybe subconsciously. If a man fails his wife, a respectful, loving wife will find (or make) room for forgiveness and reconciliation (not talking about major moral failure or abuse). The wife whose habit is primarily to test, will find instead more reason to fear, test, and control.”

I would have to say that a man who repeatedly drinks to excess and calls his wife horrible names has no business doing this. Really loving him would include making sure he owns his own responsibility for his actions. I frequently find that a lot of traditionally-minded priests, pastors, etc. will talk to the wife (because she is the only one who will show up at a meeting), scold her and send her home telling her to be a better wife. And she does so, and it repeats, and she goes back, and she is scolded again, etc., etc.

It is a never ending cycle. The wife is generally told to behave herself and be a good, meek, quiet spirit. And it continues, on and on and on….

Your comment entails a whole lot. One that I may dedicate to a whole post, but for now I wholeheartedly agree with you. The testing and passing of it should be completed before the marriage so that when the marriage is entered into, there is complete trust. However, what should be and what is are almost always different things. This is why it is so important that us older ladies get back in the habit of teaching the younger women the Truth.

I would have to say that a man who repeatedly drinks to excess and calls his wife horrible names has no business doing this.\

Of course not.

Really loving him would include making sure he owns his own responsibility for his actions.

Yes, but how?

Most women do this in a way that would be affective for them, not in a way that would be effective for most men. Women nag, speak down to, they disrespect. When women do these things, men tend to sink further into their misery. They pull back and cling harder to their vice. Men understand hard strength from other men. When women try to do this, it falls short and men reject it from them (usually). However, when a woman uses her gentle strength, her meekness (this does not mean what most of us think it means. It means contained spirit.

Now, I assume you are referring to this passage in 1 Peter 3:

3 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior.

This gentle strength, this ability to be resilient, is a woman’s strength. This is her meekness, to be strong and quiet during difficulty. To be able to maintain that, takes an enormous will but it can be done and many, many men will respond to this while they will pull back from a woman who will attempt masculinity. But this meekness must not be done in fear as that is NOT being meek. It is merely fear and the husband might then want to dominate it because he will see it as weakness (especially in his weakened state). This is not an easy place for any woman to be, but if she is resilient, if she prays and asks for and displays strength from God, she can persevere and her husband might respond to this.